343 2 Cor. xii. 2. S. Augustine understands the passage differently, i.e. that S. Paul really did not know whether or not he was in the body. Gen. ad lit. xii. 14.

344 paranomian, §2, n 5.

345 Cf. Jerome, `He speaks not in ecstasy, as Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla rave;' Proef. in Naum. In like manner Tertullian speaks of `amentia, as the spiritalis vis qua constat prophetia;' de Anim. 21. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. v. 16. Epiphanius too, noticing the failure of Maximilla's prophecies, says, `Whatever the prophets have said, they spoke with understanding, following the sense.' Hoer. 48. p. 403. In the de Syn. 4. Athan. speaks of the Montanists as making a fresh beginning of Christianity; i.e. they were the first heretics who professed to prophesy and to introduce a new or additional revelation.

346 despothj, §56, 6.

347 This expression, which repeatedly occurs in this and the following sections, surely implies that there was something economical in our Lord's profession of ignorance. He said with a purpose, not as a mere plain fact or doctrine. [But see Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.]

348 43, n. 9; 45, n. 3.

349 Acts i. 7.

350 Vid. Basil. Ep. 8, 6. Cyril. Thes. p. 222. Ambros. de fid. v. 212. Chrysost. and Hieron. in loc. Matt.

351 Vid. Hilar. in Matt. Comment. 26, 4; de Trin. ix. 67; Ambros. de Fid. v. c. 17. Isidor. Pelus. Epp. i. 117. Chrysost. in Matt. Hom. 77, 2 and 3.

352 Vid. Phil. iii. 13.

353 Matt. xxiv. 42; Luke xii. 40.

354 Vid. 2 Thess. ii. 1, 2 Thess. ii. 2.

355 Gen. iii. 9; Gen. iv. 9. This seems taken from Origen, in Matt. t. 10. §14. vid. also Pope Gregory and Chrysost. infr.

356 S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Pope Gregory, in addition to the instances in the text, refer to `I will go down now, and see whether they have done, &c., and if not, I will know.' Gen. xviii. 21. `The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, &c.' Gen. xi. 5. `God looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see, &c.' Ps. liii. 3. `It may be they will reverence My Son.' Matt. xxi. 37; Luke xx. 13. `Seeing a fig-tree afar off, having leaves, He came, if haply He might find, &c.' Mark xi. 13. `Simon, lovest thou Me?' John xxi. 15. vid. Ambros. de Fid. v. c. 17. Chrys. in Matt. Hom. 77, 3. Greg. Epp. x. 39. Vid. also the instances, supr. §37. Other passages may be added, such as Gen xxii. 12. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3. p. 42. But the difficulty of the passage lies in its signifying that there is a sense in which the Father knows what the Son knows not.

357 Or. i. 8, n. 2.

358 neanieuhsqe, vid. Decr. 18 init. de Fug. 4. b.

359 tonqoruzete, vid. Decr. 16.

360 diefqarmenh, §58 fin.

361 Luke ii. 52.

362 §32, n. 7.

363 De Syn. 24, n. 9, vid. supr. §39; Orat. iv. 11.

364 It is the doctrine of the [medieval and modern] Church that Christ, as man, was perfect in knowledge from the first, as if ignorance were hardly separable from sin, and were the direct consequence or accompaniment of original sin. Cf. Aug. de Pecc. Mer. ii. 48. As to the limits of Christ's perfect knowledge as man, Petavius observes, that we must consider `that the soul of Christ knew all things that are or ever will be or ever have been, but not what are only in posse, not in fact.' Incarn. xi. 3, 6.

365 Vid. Gen. xxvi. 13.

366 Phil. iii. 13.

367 §4, n. 10.

368 Or. ii. 36, n. 4.

369 Vid. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 18.

370 Or. ii. 12, n. 4.

371 §31, n. 10.

372 It is remarkable, considering the tone of his statements in the present chapter, that here and in what follows Athan. should resolve our Lord's advance in wisdom merely to its gradual manifestation through the flesh [but he says expressly `the Manhood advanced in wisdom!'] and it increases the proof that his statements are not to be taken in the letter, and as if fully brought out and settled. Naz. says the same, Ep. ad Cled. 101. p. 86. which is the more remarkable since he is chiefly writing against the Apollinarians, who considered a fanerwsij the great end of our Lord's coming; and Cyril. c. Nest. iii. p. 87. Theod. Hor. v. 13.On the other hand, S. Epiphanius speaks of Him as growing an wisdom as man. Hoer. 77. p. 1019-24. and S. Ambrose, Incarn. 71-14. Vid. however Ambr. de fid. as quoted supr. §45, n. 2.

373 Matt. xvi. 16; Matt. xxvii. 54.

374 Or. ii. 1, n. 6.

375 Or. ii. 10, n. 7; iii. 58.

376 i. 45.

377 iii. 16, n. 8.

378 §34.

379 ii. 69, n. 3.

380 §31, n. 12.

381 31, n. 10.

382 Or. ii. 52 n. 6.

383 dianoia, §26 et passim.

384 anw kai katw, vid. de Decr. 14, n. 1; Or. ii. 34, n. 5.

385 John xi. 35; John xii. 27; Matt. xxvi. 39; Mark xv. 34.

386 Cf. ii. 80.

387 §53, n. 2.

388 Luke xii. 4.

389 Gen. xv. 1; Gen. xxvi. 24; Exod. iv. 12, &c.; Josh. i. 6.

390 Ps. cxviii. 6.

391 Job xxxviii. 17. LXX.; De Syn. 8, below, §56.

392 John xviii. 5; John x. 18.

393 Ib. x. 30.

394 anqrwpon olon, Orat. iv. 35 fin.

395 idian, Orat. i. 52 fin.

396 This our Lord's suspense or permission, at His will, of the operations of His manhood is a great principle in the doctrine of the Incarnation. Cf. Theophylact, in Joh. xi. 34. And Cyril, fragm. in Joan. p. 685. Leon. Ep. 35, 3. Aug. in Joan. xlix 18. vid. note on §57, sub. fin. The Eutychians perverted this doctrine, as if it implied that our Lord was not subject to the laws of human nature, and that He suffered merely `by permission of the Word.' Leont. ap. Canis. t. 1. p. 563. In like manner Marcion or Manes said that His `flesh appeared from heaven in resemblance, wj hqelhsen.' Athan. contr. Apoll. ii. 3.

397 John x. 38; John xiv. 10.

398 Ib. x. 30.

399 Or. i. 43, 44, notes; ii. 66, n. 7. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 9. Tertull. de Carn. Chr. 6.

400 §44, nn. 2, 6.

401 ii, 56, n. 5.

402 Job xxxviii. 17, LXX.

403 Vid. Matt. xxvii. 52, Matt. xxvii. 53, similar passage supr. p. 88.

404 despothn, §14, &c.

405 Vid. Matt. xxvii. 54. Vid. Or. ii. 16; 35, n. 2. Cf. Leo's Tome (Ep. 28.) 4. Nyssen, contr. Eunom. iv. p. 161. Ambros. Epist. i. 46. n. 7. vid. Hil. Trin. x. 48. Also vid. Athan. Sent. D. fin. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 24.

406 Matt. xvi. 23, cf. §§40, 41.

407 [The human will of the Saviour is in absolute harmony with the Divine, though psychologically distinct.] Cf. Anast. Hodeg. i. p. 12.

408 It is observable that, as elsewhere we have seen Athan. speak of the nature of the Word, and of, not the nature of man as united to Him, but of flesh, humanity, &c. (vid. Or. ii. 45, n. 2.) so here, instead of speaking of two wills, he speaks of the Word's willing and human weakness, terror, &c. In another place he says still more pointedly, `The will was of the Godhead alone; since the whole nature of the Word was manifested in the second Adam's human form and visible flesh. contr. Apoll. ii. 10. Cf. S. Leo on the same passage: `The first request is one of infirmity, the second of power; the first He asked in our [character], the second in His own. ...The inferior will give way to the superior,' &c. Serm. 56, 2. vid. a similar passage in Nyssen. Antirrh. adv. Apol. 32. vid. also 31. An obvious objection may be drawn from such passages, as if the will `of the flesh' were represented as contrary (vid. foregoing note) to the will of the Word. The whole of our Lord's prayer is offered by Him as man, because it is a prayer; the first part is not from Him as man, but the second, which corrects it, from Him as God [i.e. the first part is not human as contrasted with the second]; but the former part is from the sinless infirmity of our nature, the latter from His human will expressing its acquiescence in His Father's, that is, in His Divine Will. `His Will,' says S. Greg. Naz. `was not contrary to God, being all deified, qewqen olon.'

409 nomizomenh, vid. Orat. i. 10.

410 Acts v. 29.

411 John xii. 27; John x. 18.

412 This might be taken as an illustration of the ut voluit supr. Or. i. 44, n. 11. And so the expressions in the Evangelists, `Into Thy hands I commend My Spirit,' `He bowed the head,' `He gave up the ghost,' are taken to imply that His death was His free act. vid. Ambros. in loc. Luc. Hieron. in loc. Matt. also Athan. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 4. It is Catholic doctrine that our Lord, as man, submitted to death of His free will, and not as obeying an express command of the Father. Cf. S. Chrysostom on John x. 18. Theophylact. in Hebr. xii. 2; Aug. de Trin. iv. 16.

413 Ps. xvi. 10.

414 Or. ii. 65, n. 3.

415 Ib. 69, n. 3.

416 §53.

417 Thus ends the exposition of texts, which forms the body of these Orations. It is remarkable that he ends as be began, with reference to the ecclesiastical scope, or Regula Fidei, which has so often come under our notice, vid. Or. ii. 35. n. 2. 44, n. 1, as if distinctly to tell us, that Scripture did not so force its meaning on the individual as to dispense with an interpreter, and as if his own deductions were not to be viewed merely in their own logical power, great as that power often is, but as under the authority of the Catholic doctrines which they subserve. Vid. Or. iii. 18, n. 3.

418 This chapter is in a very different style from the foregoing portions of this Book, and much more resembles the former two; not only in its subject and the mode of treating it, but in the words introduced, e.g. epispeirousi, epinoousi, gogguzousi, kaq' umaj, atopon, leceidion, eij twn pantwn, &c. And the references are to the former Orations.

419 See 50, n. 10; Serap. i. 18.

420 qeomaxoi, de Decr. 3, n. 1; Or. ii. 32, n. 4. Vid. Dissert. by Bucher on the word in Acts v. 39. ap. Thesaur. Theol. Phil. N. T. t. 2.

421 qeostugeij, §40.

422 §64, note.